Dr. Brian Sovryn is the proprietor and developer of Zomia Offline Games, as well as the creator and host of the podcast Sovryn Tech. His background in technology comes from years spent with multiple tech companies, the U.S. Army, and from being involved in the cypherpunk community since the late 1990's. Brian also has a Doctorate of Divinity. He was a co-host of the nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live for two years, as well as a co-host with Dr. Stephanie Murphy on the popular Let's Talk Bitcoin Network show Sex & Science Hour, and has made numerous appearances on other podcasts and radio shows. He's also a public speaker at various liberty, anarchist, Bitcoin, blockchain, and tech events throughout the world. Brian also fancies himself a gamer, historian, and tech journalist (in that order), and is a supporter of the Center for a Stateless Society, the Center for Global Nonkilling, the Albert Einstein Institute, and the Institute of General Semantics. Born in 1981 in New York, Brian Sovryn is ethnically Jewish, and unfortunately converted to Christianity for a time, but is now a freethinker and anarchist. He is presently a denizen of New Hampshire. Citizen of Asgardia

What is Sovryn Tech?

Sovryn Tech is the popular anarchist-themed science and technology show hosted by Dr. Brian Sovryn, and has been running weekly (with intermittent "specials" inbetween) since 2012. The show is completely uncensored–and much like Zomia Offline Games–touches on subjects in tech and science that are often considered taboo by the rest of the podcast world (and really, the world in general). Loaded with tech news, science, geekdom, and many predictions by Dr. Brian Sovryn–known by listeners as the "Golden Stallion of the Tech World", "The Man of Tomorrow", and "The Libertine-in-Chief"–that have often been accurate, as well as many insights that you are guaranteed to not get anywhere else, it covers a wide range of topics through its various segments, and is very listener interactive. In the end, Sovryn Tech is meant to entertain as much as it informs.

What is Dark Android?

Dark Android is a project to create inexpensive, secure, privacy-hardened Android devices. It is constantly updated with the latest apps, tips, and tricks to keep your Android device as safe and secure as possible, along with a lot of old school "meatspace" tricks to show you how to use your device with privacy and anonymity in the fore.

You say Brian Sovryn is an anarchist. Does that mean he wears all black and throws Molotov cocktails?

While Brian is well know for wearing all black all the time (what he calls "triple-black), all "anarchist" means is: "no rulers". Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with violence. To learn more, feel free to listen to the aforementioned weekly newscast: Sovryn Tech.

==============================

Brian's previous interview on the Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Radio Show:

Michael, known by his pseudonym Rassah online, has been involved in cryptocurrencies since almost their very beginning, and has been involved in digital currencies in general for almost twenty years. With a background in both computers and finance, including economics, blockchains are a natural fit for his career and passion.

As a public figure and an expert in the fields of finance, investing, economics, blockchain, and emerging technologies, he has been featured in numerous articles, podcasts, and interviews, and has been a guest speaker at various conferences around the world.

Michael is passionate about the emerging field of crypto-finance, and the ways in which it will change and empower everyone's lives, especially of those in third world countries, while helping eliminate corruption and abuse in both private and public sectors.

Prof. Ball is a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. He earned a Doctorate of Science at Queen Mary College, University of London, was Chairman of the Canadian Committee on Climatic Fluctuation, Chairman of Winnipeg's Advisory Committee on Hazardous Waste, has authored 53 scientific papers, and is the author of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. Professor Ball says that human-caused global warming is the biggest deception in history.

I received three defamation lawsuits from the same lawyer all on behalf of members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I just received a judgment in one of these cases brought against me by the IPCC member who also is leader of the Green Party in the Province of British Columbia. He was a central player on a committee that brought in a carbon tax, the first in North America. The judge totally dismissed his claim. These lawsuits fall into the category of SLAPP lawsuits, that is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In other words they are lawsuits designed to silence people, so my victory is a huge win for free speech in Canada. Americans know, but don't, in my opinion, fully appreciate the value of your first amendment. We do not have such protection in Canada, yet many Americans see Canada as a kind, caring, open society. Such is not the case. We have a Prime Minister that nobody gets to vote for and only has the job because he was elected leader of his political party. That party received only 38% of the popular vote so he is in the job because of a small group of power elites. No wonder you guys had a Revolution.

Bjorn Lomborg points out that if every country met all its CO2 reduction goals as required by the Paris Climate Accord by 2030 the total temperature reduction will be 0.048 degrees Celsius by 2100. Of course, the economic cost would be in the trillions.

I am extremely grateful for the judgment of a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against me by Andrew Weaver. It is a victory for free speech and a blow against the use of the law to silence people. As with all events, there is so much more that rarely receives attention yet is essential to understanding and improving conditions in the future.

While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer, Roger McConchie, in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In each case, he also filed lawsuits against the agency that published what I wrote or said. This is why Anthony Watts wisely asked me and I was willing to put the phrase "Guest Opinion" at the top of any column I wrote. Of course, the double-barreled lawsuits created complications in mounting any defense.

The first lawsuit was brought by Gordon McBean. In 1985, when he was Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada he chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in Villach Austria. My wife and I decided we could not afford to defend the case and so I withdrew the publication. This, in my opinion, achieved the objective of the lawsuit that many call SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). All the lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. BC had anti-SLAPP but for some unknown reason, it was withdrawn through legislation. The anti-SLAPP legislation is spreading as politicians and lawyers realize the dangers in using the law designed to protect people by silencing them. Eight of the other ten Canadian Provinces have anti-SLAPP legislation.

The second lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrew Weaver. At the time he was a professor of computer modelling at the University of Victoria and author on four of the IPCC Science Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, 2013). After filing the lawsuit, he was elected to the BC Legislative Assembly as a member of the Green Party. He later was re-elected as the leader of the BC Green Party.

Nine days after receiving the Weaver lawsuit I gave a public presentation in Winnipeg, including an explanation of the "hockey stick." Afterward, I was interviewed by the Frontier Centre, and they published my flippant comment about the juxtaposition of Mann's location. Within 24 hours I received the third lawsuit. That case was scheduled for trial on February 20, 2017, but after six years Mann sought an adjournment. We are now trying to get the case back into court. It was incorrectly reported that Mann was in contempt of court for failing to produce documents. He did not produce the documents, but he is only in contempt of the court when they so rule. That is part of what we will pursue now the Weaver trial is finished. How quickly that will proceed is hard to know because I understand Weaver is going to file an appeal.

The Weaver defamation case involved an article I wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. I referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. I made comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit. Meanwhile, Weaver's lawyer arranged with the publisher of Canada Free Press (CFP) to print an apology he had written. I never knew about that until after it was printed. As a result, I withdrew all my articles on file with CFP and did not send them anything else.

I contacted a lawyer, Michael Scherr of Pearlman Lindholm to defend myself against the case. He wrote a letter withdrawing and apologizing for the unsubstantiated comment but not the main thrust of the article. Apparently, that was insufficient for Weaver because he continued the lawsuit. He did not call a single witness to the trial. It lasted three weeks, and the judge allowed witness statements into the record without objection from Weaver. On Tuesday, February 13 the judgement was released with the ruling that all claims against me were dismissed. The judgment is available on line, so I will not influence anyone's view by commenting here.

I am meeting with my lawyer next week to reactivate the Michael Mann trial as soon as possible. We will discuss costs but cannot do anything until the Appeals procedure is over. I can tell you I am overwhelmed by the financial and support from around the world. The sort of comment that is particularly encouraging is a variation of Voltaire's comment that I don't necessarily agree with you, but you must have the right to say it. Of course, Voltaire understood the station because he also said what I discovered

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where men in authority are wrong."